Mats Bengtsson wrote:
try doing \displayMusic on both
<c-.>
and
<c>-.
As you can see, in the latter case, the articulation is not attached
to the note, and it would be difficult to attach the right symbol
(articulation, fingering, etc.) to the right note head.
As far as I can see, your argument is that LilyPond handles c-. exactly the
same as <c>-. which in turn should imply that c\1 would be the same as
<c>\1 (which does not make sense since you cannot attach a single
fingering to a
full chord).
No, my argument is that they're handled differently. It's
Fingering_engraver vs. New_fingering_engrvaer
I realize that the parser might get slightly more complex, but that's
the job of the
parser, right? To convert something that's intuitive for the user into a
representation
that is convenient for the computer.
No, that's not the job of the parser. The parser translates an ASCII
representation of a music tree into a computer representation of the
same tree.
If you want to translate c-. to <c-.> , then you can write a music
function to do so. We could even add it to the functions which are
called by default. I'm not altogether sure it's a good idea, though.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user